On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 07:54:26 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <geEHM.669712$TCKc.376701@fx13.iad>, trotsky
><gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Speaking of the Dixie Chicks, wasn't that just an early example of right
>> wing cancel culture?
>
>
>It was. I don't have a good grasp on how much damage they suffered, or
>if they've recovered at least somewhat from that, but they took a very
>hard hit.

From their Wikipedia.

Days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Maines told a London audience
that the Dixie Chicks did not endorse the war and were ashamed of US
President George W. Bush being from Texas. The remarks triggered
boycotts in the US and a backlash from fans. After a hiatus, the Dixie
Chicks released Taking the Long Way in 2006, an album informed by the
backlash. "Not Ready to Make Nice" became their biggest crossover
single, reaching number four on the Billboard Hot 100.

==========
Sounds like it didn't actually do them any real lasting harm. Just a
lot of noise in the press and maybe some short term sales damage. But
to come back with a smash hit only 3 years later shows it didn't
really hurt them.

In article <qumueit5vbonr3ud5ru2c7as80ggrh5jgi@4ax.com>, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 07:54:26 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <geEHM.669712$TCKc.376701@fx13.iad>, trotsky
> ><gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Speaking of the Dixie Chicks, wasn't that just an early example of right
> >> wing cancel culture?
> >
> >
> >It was. I don't have a good grasp on how much damage they suffered, or
> >if they've recovered at least somewhat from that, but they took a very
> >hard hit.
>
> From their Wikipedia.
>
> Days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Maines told a London audience
> that the Dixie Chicks did not endorse the war and were ashamed of US
> President George W. Bush being from Texas. The remarks triggered
> boycotts in the US and a backlash from fans. After a hiatus, the Dixie
> Chicks released Taking the Long Way in 2006, an album informed by the
> backlash. "Not Ready to Make Nice" became their biggest crossover
> single, reaching number four on the Billboard Hot 100.
>
> ==========
> Sounds like it didn't actually do them any real lasting harm. Just a
> lot of noise in the press and maybe some short term sales damage. But
> to come back with a smash hit only 3 years later shows it didn't
> really hurt them.

Thanks for all of that.

nope@noway.com wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> In article <250820231248253393%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-08-25 9:01 AM, "trotsky" wrote:

>>>>> While I understand everybody has an opinion, and even assholes get to
>>>>> be assholes under the 1st Amendment... what I DON'T understand is why
>>>>> they're not smart enough to shut their fucking bigoted traps?
>>>>>
>>>>> For fuck's sake, if your business depends on serving the public, shut
>>>>> your pie-hole if you want to keep sellin' them songs.� I don't give a
>>>>> shit about your personal bigoted opinions... I come for the music.
>>>>
>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks were spouting
>>>> there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were on the side of the angels
>>>> so they get a pass. In fact they got major kudos for "speaking truth to
>>>> power", right?
>>>
>>>You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did not say, and
>>>then you attack him for having said it. Typical.
>>
>> Nice strawman and projection, dude.
>>
>> Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.
>
>To repeat: He didn't say that. You attacked him for it anyway. Then
>you cried "strawman!" and your usual "get back to us when" bullshit.
>
>You're babbling nonsense and you should stop now. Dude.

Do not blame me for your reading comprehension problems. YOU'RE the one
accusing BTR and me of saying things we did not say.

--
Let's go Brandon!

In article <280820231825298905%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks were spouting
>>>>> there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were on the side of the angels
>>>>> so they get a pass. In fact they got major kudos for "speaking truth to
>>>>> power", right?
>>>>
>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did not say, and
>>>> then you attack him for having said it.
>>>
>>>Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times over the
>>>last several months.
>>
>> #MeToo
>
>Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>do it.

We already did. You claimed it's not good enough because you didn't read the
articles and obviously refused to read them when provided.

--
Let's go Brandon!

"trotsky" wrote:

>Why, when you CAN'T back up what you say, like a normal person. Deny
>and deflect is the "go-to" when challenged.

Oh, the irony!

--
THE LEFT WING INTERNET ARGUING CHECKLIST

1.Skim until Offended
2.Disqualify that Opinion
3.Attack, Attack, Attack
4.Disregard Inconvenient facts
5.Make Shit Up
6.Resort to Moral Equivalency
7.Concern Trolling
8.When all else fails, Racism!

atropos@mac.com wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2023 at 7:23:54 PM PDT, "A Friend" <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were spouting there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the side of the angels so they get a pass. In fact they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> got major kudos for "speaking truth to power", right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
>>>>>>>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>>>>>>>>>>> over the last several months.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> #MeToo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I
>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that
>>>>>>>> when cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as
>>>>>>>> you're wont to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, good luck with that.
>>>>>>> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
>>>>>> do it."
>>>>>
>>>>> That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they won't
>>>>> 'count' if provided.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around it
>>>>> speaks volumes.
>>>>
>>>> Still no cites, yadda yadda yadda. *That* speaks volumes.
>>>
>>> Still no guarantee, yadda yadda yadda.
>>
>> This is your obsession, not mine. I'm not required to "guarantee" a
>> thing here.
>
>You are if you want me to go to trouble to dig up the proof. Your previous
>"those don't count because I don't read that newspaper, magazine, etc."
>responses to citations you demanded have used up all the good will.

And here is where he displays his selective memory in a followup to you.

--
THE LEFT WING INTERNET ARGUING CHECKLIST

1.Skim until Offended
2.Disqualify that Opinion
3.Attack, Attack, Attack
4.Disregard Inconvenient facts
5.Make Shit Up
6.Resort to Moral Equivalency
7.Concern Trolling
8.When all else fails, Racism!

In article <uconn5$2ufpu$2@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
<weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

> nope@noway.com wrote:
> > Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >> In article <250820231248253393%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
> >>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-08-25 9:01 AM, "trotsky" wrote:
>
> >>>>> While I understand everybody has an opinion, and even assholes get to
> >>>>> be assholes under the 1st Amendment... what I DON'T understand is why
> >>>>> they're not smart enough to shut their fucking bigoted traps?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For fuck's sake, if your business depends on serving the public, shut
> >>>>> your pie-hole if you want to keep sellin' them songs.ð I don't give a
> >>>>> shit about your personal bigoted opinions... I come for the music.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks were spouting
> >>>> there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were on the side of the angels
> >>>> so they get a pass. In fact they got major kudos for "speaking truth to
> >>>> power", right?
> >>>
> >>>You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did not say, and
> >>>then you attack him for having said it. Typical.
> >>
> >> Nice strawman and projection, dude.
> >>
> >> Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.
> >
> >To repeat: He didn't say that. You attacked him for it anyway. Then
> >you cried "strawman!" and your usual "get back to us when" bullshit.
> >
> >You're babbling nonsense and you should stop now. Dude.
>
> Do not blame me for your reading comprehension problems. YOU'RE the one
> accusing BTR and me of saying things we did not say.

Unfortunately for you, it's all on the record, as is your latest
attempt to divert followups outside of r.a.t. without notice.

Stop being a punk.

In article <uconu9$2ufpu$3@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
<weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

> In article <280820231825298905%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
> > Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >> atropos@mac.com wrote:
> >>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> >>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks were spouting
> >>>>> there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were on the side of the angels
> >>>>> so they get a pass. In fact they got major kudos for "speaking truth to
> >>>>> power", right?
> >>>>
> >>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did not say, and
> >>>> then you attack him for having said it.
> >>>
> >>>Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times over the
> >>>last several months.
> >>
> >> #MeToo
> >
> >Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I didn't
> >do it.
>
> We already did. You claimed it's not good enough because you didn't read the
> articles and obviously refused to read them when provided.

All you have to do is provide those quotes about the Dixie Chicks.
That'd be hard to do since the quotes don't exist, but that kind of
thing has never stopped you before.

On 8/30/23 6:54 AM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <geEHM.669712$TCKc.376701@fx13.iad>, trotsky
> <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Speaking of the Dixie Chicks, wasn't that just an early example of right
>> wing cancel culture?
>
>
> It was. I don't have a good grasp on how much damage they suffered, or
> if they've recovered at least somewhat from that, but they took a very
> hard hit.

As I remember it that were the most or one of the most popular country
artists and fell off the map when the Republishits got through with them.

On 8/30/23 8:50 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <uconn5$2ufpu$2@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> nope@noway.com wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <250820231248253393%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-08-25 9:01 AM, "trotsky" wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> While I understand everybody has an opinion, and even assholes get to
>>>>>>> be assholes under the 1st Amendment... what I DON'T understand is why
>>>>>>> they're not smart enough to shut their fucking bigoted traps?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For fuck's sake, if your business depends on serving the public, shut
>>>>>>> your pie-hole if you want to keep sellin' them songs.ð I don't give a
>>>>>>> shit about your personal bigoted opinions... I come for the music.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks were spouting
>>>>>> there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were on the side of the angels
>>>>>> so they get a pass. In fact they got major kudos for "speaking truth to
>>>>>> power", right?
>>>>>
>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did not say, and
>>>>> then you attack him for having said it. Typical.
>>>>
>>>> Nice strawman and projection, dude.
>>>>
>>>> Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.
>>>
>>> To repeat: He didn't say that. You attacked him for it anyway. Then
>>> you cried "strawman!" and your usual "get back to us when" bullshit.
>>>
>>> You're babbling nonsense and you should stop now. Dude.
>>
>> Do not blame me for your reading comprehension problems. YOU'RE the one
>> accusing BTR and me of saying things we did not say.
>
>
> Unfortunately for you, it's all on the record, as is your latest
> attempt to divert followups outside of r.a.t. without notice.
>
> Stop being a punk.

He's used the same m.o. for at least 25 years as far as I can tell.

On 8/31/2023 4:38 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 8/30/23 8:50 PM, A Friend wrote:
>> In article <uconn5$2ufpu$2@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
>> <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> nope@noway.com wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> In article <250820231248253393%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
>>>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-08-25 9:01 AM, "trotsky" wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> While I understand everybody has an opinion, and even assholes
>>>>>>>> get to
>>>>>>>> be assholes under the 1st Amendment... what I DON'T understand
>>>>>>>> is why
>>>>>>>> they're not smart enough to shut their fucking bigoted traps?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For fuck's sake, if your business depends on serving the public,
>>>>>>>> shut
>>>>>>>> your pie-hole if you want to keep sellin' them songs.ð I don't
>>>>>>>> give a
>>>>>>>> shit about your personal bigoted opinions... I come for the music.
>>>>>>> I'll bet you said exactly the same when the Dixie Chicks were
>>>>>>> spouting
>>>>>>> there opinions too, right? Oh wait, they were on the side of the
>>>>>>> angels
>>>>>>> so they get a pass. In fact they got major kudos for "speaking
>>>>>>> truth to
>>>>>>> power", right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did not
>>>>>> say, and
>>>>>> then you attack him for having said it.  Typical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice strawman and projection, dude.
>>>>>
>>>>> Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.
>>>>
>>>> To repeat: He didn't say that.  You attacked him for it anyway.  Then
>>>> you cried "strawman!" and your usual "get back to us when" bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> You're babbling nonsense and you should stop now.  Dude.
>>>
>>> Do not blame me for your reading comprehension problems. YOU'RE the one
>>> accusing BTR and me of saying things we did not say.
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately for you, it's all on the record, as is your latest
>> attempt to divert followups outside of r.a.t. without notice.
>>
>> Stop being a punk.
>
>
> He's used the same m.o. for at least 25 years as far as I can tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_zone

In article <290820232349107983%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2023 at 7:23:54 PM PDT, "A Friend" <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> > BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > > A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> > > > Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> > > >> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>> > > >>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>>> > > >>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> > > >>>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>> > > >>>>>> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>>>> > > >>>>>>> You've accused him here of saying something he in fact did
>>>> > > >>>>>>> not say, and then you attack him for having said it.
>>>> > > >>>>>>
>>>> > > >>>>>> Dude, look in the mirror. You've done that to me several times
>>>> > > >>>>>> over the last several months.
>>>> > > >>>>>
>>>> > > >>>>> #MeToo
>>>> > > >>>>
>>>> > > >>>> Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I
>>>> > > >>>> didn't do it.
>>>> > > >>>
>>>> > > >>> No, as I said earlier, I'm waiting for a guarantee from you that
>>>> > > >>> when cites are provided, you won't just say they don't count as
>>>> > > >>> you're wont to do.
>>>> > > >>
>>>> > > >> Yeah, good luck with that.
>>>> > > >> That's one of their main "debating" methods!
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > "Still no cites from either of you. Of course, that's because I
>>>> > > > didn't
>>>> > > > do it."
>>>> > >
>>>> > > That's because you still have yet to guarantee you won't say they
>>>> > > won't
>>>> > > 'count' if provided.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Should be a simple thing to do. The fact that you're dancing around
>>>> > > it speaks volumes.
>>>> >
>>>> > Still no cites, yadda yadda yadda. *That* speaks volumes.
>>>>
>>>> Still no guarantee, yadda yadda yadda.
>>>
>>> This is your obsession, not mine. I'm not required�to "guarantee" a
>>> thing here.
>>
>> You are if you want me to go to trouble to dig up the proof. Your previous
>> "those don't count because I don't read that newspaper, magazine, etc."
>> responses to citations you demanded have used up all the good will.
>>
>> You don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore.
>
>What doubt? I'm sure I've never said anything about the Dixie Chicks
>that was worth remembering. As for "those don't count because I don't
>read that newspaper, magazine, etc.," I have no idea what you're
>talking about.

Feigning stupidity isn't fooling anyone, dude.
Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

--
Let's go Brandon!